News24

State seeks conviction in hunting case

2013-01-25 20:06

Pretoria - A Limpopo man who shot dead two suspected illegal hunters on his father's game farm should be convicted of culpable homicide, the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria heard on Friday

Prosecutor Christo Roberts conceded that the State had not proved murder charges against Dyllan de Beer, 20, and his father Douw, 52, but argued that it had proved that De Beer had been negligent.

Roberts asked for Dyllan's conviction on two charges of culpable homicide and a charge of stealing one of the hunter's cellphones.

Dyllan had admitted to shooting Morris Morua, 36, and Zacharia Leso, 35, on his father's game farm Deo Gloria near Boschhoek on 11 April 2004.

He claimed he acted in self-defence because the two were illegally hunting on his father's farm and were shooting at him.

His father admitted burning the bodies on a stack of wood, but told the court he was "beside himself" and had decided to "clean up" because he wanted to prevent his son from being arrested.

Dyllan was 16-years-old and still at school at the time.

Investigating officer Captain Nick Pitsoane earlier testified that the only human remains found on the farm were of 10 small bones, which were not enough for a funeral.

Roberts argued that Douw de Beer should be convicted on a charge of defeating the course of justice.

The total destruction of the bodies had not only concealed the fact that they had been killed during a shooting incident, but made it impossible to perform a post mortem examination which could either have confirmed or disproved Dyllan's version.

Roberts said there was no evidence that Dyllan had helped his father to dispose of the bodies.

"Although it is extremely doubtful that De Beer snr did all the hard work alone while De Beer jnr a strapping young fellow who had caused all the trouble, sat idly in the vehicle while his father slaved away - there is nothing on record to contradict it," he said.

He argued that Dyllan had exceeded the bounds of self-defence.

He could have run away and sought help when shots were fired at him, but chose to blindly fire in the direction where his attackers were without caring if he hit anyone or not.

He did not act as the reasonable man would have done and had therefore negligently caused the men's death, Roberts said.

Defence counsel Kobus Strijdom SC argued that Dyllan's guilt had not been proved and that he should be acquitted on all charges.

He said Dyllan's conduct should be viewed in the light of what would have been reasonable for a child of 16, in circumstances where he was under attack and feared for his life.

He said the many bullet casings found at the scene supported his client's version.

Judge Winston Msimeki postponed the trial to April for judgment.

Comments
  • Gideon.Viljoen - 2013-01-25 20:11

    Private property

      Jack - 2013-01-25 20:40

      "He could have run away and sought help when shots were fired at him, but chose to blindly fire in the direction where his attackers were without caring if he hit anyone or not." CAN YOU BELIEVE IT. The guy deserves a medal. He is a real man. His dad is proud of him. So should all South Africans. Put him in charge of defending our rhinos.

      koos.vandermerwe.75 - 2013-01-25 20:50

      Yes Jack. The people in the know says when shot at on your property you should run away and get help instead of defending yourself and your properly and let the criminals do as they please... Yes un bloody believable!

      peasant.mcpoor - 2013-01-25 21:30

      @jack- I also copied and pasted that but u beat me 2 it.its so friggin retarded because a human can outrun bullets!! And by the time he got help...on a farm?..with saps amazing response time...? Wtf? We are on our own- kill or be killed.

      sheda.habib - 2013-01-25 22:03

      So was Marikana And watch the police get away with murder there. Oh I forgot did anyone mention that they are charged because they are farmers not police.

      di.hingley - 2013-01-26 12:52

      Either I can't count or I misunderstood the story....Did the shooting happen in 2004? Was Dyllan 16 at the time? Is he now 20 years old? Dyllan had admitted to shooting Morris Morua, 36, and Zacharia Leso, 35, on his father's game farm Deo Gloria near Boschhoek on 11 April 2004. Dyllan was 16-years-old and still at school at the time. Prosecutor Christo Roberts conceded that the State had not proved murder charges against Dyllan de Beer, 20, and his father Douw, 52, but argued that it had proved that De Beer had been negligent. ???????????????????????

  • themba.thwala.775 - 2013-01-25 20:31

    Self defence is easy to prove, espcially where tresspassers are involved. But burning the bodies displays guilt - trying to dispose of evidence that could be used against the guilty party

      nuus.reeder - 2013-01-26 06:03

      True, but the problem is we all know the law protects criminals more than humans, so I think the father chose to avoid the whole process. Naughty, but not evil, he was just trying to protect his son.

      themba.thwala.775 - 2013-01-26 11:33

      Nathan, go and defend that satan and see how far you get with your retarded defence

  • Itu Santino Cortez - 2013-01-25 21:19

    leso means funeral

      gail.rieck.9 - 2013-01-26 18:04

      What are you on about??????

  • CarolynDewrance - 2013-01-25 21:54

    Would you run away if someone was shooting at you and you had a gun and could shoot back, This man was defending himself and his fathers farm, and good riddance to the two illegals, they got what they deserved.

  • Tello Moleko - 2013-01-25 22:12

    then after defending yourself,why burn the dead body?

      mike.clery - 2013-01-25 22:30

      He was 16 at the time. His father burnt the bodies, not him, probably because the father was anticipating and trying to protect his son from being charged with murder for defending himself, and that's exactly what happened - he was charged with murder.

  • mike.clery - 2013-01-25 22:21

    "He argued that Dyllan had exceeded the bounds of self-defence. He could have run away and sought help when shots were fired at him, but chose to blindly fire in the direction where his attackers were without caring if he hit anyone or not. He did not act as the reasonable man would have done and had therefore negligently caused the men's death, Roberts said." Has the world, or at least the NPA, gone mad? People shoot at you intending to kill you, and it's "unreasonable" to shoot back?

      nuus.reeder - 2013-01-26 06:06

      He certainly did not fire "blindly", if he did the poachers would still be alive today. He did what a reasonable man would do, he kept his cool, took careful aim and eliminated the people that tried to kill him.

  • WigzellRM - 2013-01-25 22:40

    "He did not act as the reasonable man would have done and had therefore negligently caused the men's death, Roberts said." Any reasonable man should have the right to defend himself and his property. Thieves, rapists, poachers and the like all violate the rights of others without any compunction and do not deserve protection under the same rights. Unfortunately right now in this country and other western countries, the criminal has more rights than the man on the street. A really twisted situation brought about by twisted people.

      nuus.reeder - 2013-01-26 06:07

      Strange that "human rights" are so heavily scewed towards protecting criminals.

  • Michael Hawthorne - 2013-01-26 02:54

    Why should we run for help while being murdered. Burning the bodies was a bit too much but hey people do strange things when they felt they were wrong in killing in self defence. With the current farm murder rate it is vital too shoot first ask questions later.

      nuus.reeder - 2013-01-26 06:11

      True, the current circumstances in our country have created a climate that extreme measures are required to protect life and property.(Climate created by a government that has failed us) We don't live in a "reasonable" country, how on earth are a 16 year old and his father meant to react in a "reasonable" fashion to an extreme event such as this?

  • nuus.reeder - 2013-01-26 06:00

    If somebody shoots at me I won't assume he wants to kill me, I'll know it! I'll shoot back if possible and make the best effort possible to ensure that I kill them. Such people need to be removed from the planet, they are a threat to other human beings. Its a pity the law does not see it this way, and seems to focus heavily on criminal rights at the expense of the innocent.

  • gerhard.zlatarich - 2013-01-26 06:09

    So according to council it is deemed wrong to protect oneself and one's property?! Sad to see what's happening to SA!!!

  • gerhard.zlatarich - 2013-01-26 06:12

    So according to council it is deemed wrong to protect oneself and one's property?! Sad to see what's happening to SA!!!

  • gerrie.koekemoer - 2013-01-26 06:45

    With all the farm murders and attacks and crime we are all soft targets, if the young man was shot it would become another stastitic and the ilegals would be free.

  • alananthonygreen - 2013-01-26 07:59

    i wonder why they left the bones

  • AndrewsPaul - 2013-01-26 09:16

    Christo Roberts is an idiot and should be taken to task for his ridiculous notion that the rights of a criminal to attack an innocent individual are somehow elevated above the victim's right to defend himself. How would sane logic and reasoning arrive at the conclusion that an armed victim's reasonable, and by inference, lawful, response to being shot at by an attacker or attackers, is to run away, rather than defend yourself? It is precisely because of the widely held acceptance of this delusional notion within certain quarters of our society today that our attackers have become more and more brazen in their attacks. Why would a group of men in Marikana armed with only a few small arms, and home-made weapons storm heavily armed police ranks, if not because they believed the heavily armed police forces would have no (lawful) right to defend themselves? Christo Roberts may be a senior advocate with the NPA with many years of study and experience, but clearly he is possessed of little to no common sense whatsoever, to want to publicly advance such a deluded and reckless cause as that.

  • pages:
  • 1